The Big Bang Theory

[juvenissun]

No I didn't. Though I may have incorrectly implied it, I clarified the point a couple of posts up.


Well, it's an accurate reading of Genesis 1. But it is a fundamental impossibility when compared against the harsh nature of reality.

What harsh nature? If it were so harsh, how could organic material be formed anywhere in the universe? Some organic molecules discovered (?) on comet/meteorite are pretty big. They might even be bigger and were plant cells in a condensing nebula.

Why is it impossible?

 

[juvenissun]

Hmm, that makes me wonder. Are there photosynthetic archaea? I wonder if halobacteria count. The creatures definitely use light to make ATP but they also use organic carbon sources rather than CO[sub]2[/sub] or something. Well, I guess they do synthesise stuff with that ATP...

(But halobacteria are aerobic)

A question seeks your opinion:

Is it possible for a plant cell to "grow" (not sure what does it mean, may be making ATP?) with lights other than visible light?

 

[Chalnoth]

What harsh nature? If it were so harsh, how could organic material be formed anywhere in the universe? Some organic molecules discovered (?) on comet/meteorite are pretty big. They might even be bigger and were plant cells in a condensing nebula.

Why is it impossible?

Harsh is a subjective term. In this case, reality is extremely harsh to your beliefs about the literal truth of Genesis 1.

And while the molecules discovered no comets/meteorites may be rather large, they are not self-replicating, which is a basic requirement for all life.

 

[Naraoia]

What harsh nature? If it were so harsh, how could organic material be formed anywhere in the universe? Some organic molecules discovered (?) on comet/meteorite are pretty big. They might even be bigger and were plant cells in a condensing nebula.

Why is it impossible?

I thought you were talking about plants before the sun. Plants photosynthesise. How do you think they'd do that without a light source? That has nothing to do with how harsh the universe is for organic molecules.

 

[Chalnoth]

A question seeks your opinion:

Is it possible for a plant cell to "grow" (not sure what does it mean, may be making ATP?) with lights other than visible light?

And where would this light other than visible light come from?

 

[Naraoia]

A question seeks your opinion:

Is it possible for a plant cell to "grow" (not sure what does it mean, may be making ATP?) with lights other than visible light?

Don't think so... Plants are tuned to red and blue light. They can't make much use of anything else, and AFAIK they can't use light too far into UV or infrared either. You can look up the action spectrum of photosynthesis, but I'm pretty sure about this.

By the way, why are you asking that? "Visible" light is just a random part of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans happen to be able to detect. "Visible" light isn't even the same for all eyed animals (birds and bees can see UV, for example).

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

What harsh nature? If it were so harsh, how could organic material be formed anywhere in the universe? Some organic molecules discovered (?) on comet/meteorite are pretty big. They might even be bigger and were plant cells in a condensing nebula.

Why is it impossible?

Organic molecules such as aromatic hydrocarbons can be pretty robust. Some like anthracene have been detected in nebula and can be formed by the ionization simpler of carbon and hydrogen containing compounds. There is nothing really special about organics. You seem to imply that they are always associated with life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nature = Fact
Genesis = Myth

Ah --- now I understand.

 

[juvenissun]

Don't think so... Plants are tuned to red and blue light. They can't make much use of anything else, and AFAIK they can't use light too far into UV or infrared either. You can look up the action spectrum of photosynthesis, but I'm pretty sure about this.

By the way, why are you asking that? "Visible" light is just a random part of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans happen to be able to detect. "Visible" light isn't even the same for all eyed animals (birds and bees can see UV, for example).

OK, thanks.

But, I just wonder if plants could grow under far infrared (heat) or UV. It does not reflect much of it, right? Well, I need to find the spectrum data.

I said visible light because that the current plants "coincidently" use that part of light.

 

[juvenissun]

Harsh is a subjective term. In this case, reality is extremely harsh to your beliefs about the literal truth of Genesis 1.

And while the molecules discovered no comets/meteorites may be rather large, they are not self-replicating, which is a basic requirement for all life.

They could be dead and decomposed plant cells under the harsh environment (plus no oxygen).

Why not?

 

[Chalnoth]

I said visible light because that the current plants "coincidently" use that part of light.

It's not a coincidence. It's because that's the part of the spectrum where the solar irradiance is the highest. Go into the infrared, and the radiation is absorbed by water vapor in the atmosphere. Go into the UV, and it's scattered too much by the atmosphere. It also helps that the temperature of the Sun is such that its energy output peaks right around the middle of the visible spectrum.

They could be dead and decomposed plant cells under the harsh environment (plus no oxygen).

Why not?

How the hell could any biological material get to comets/asteroids?

 

[juvenissun]

Organic molecules such as aromatic hydrocarbons can be pretty robust. Some like anthracene have been detected in nebula and can be formed by the ionization simpler of carbon and hydrogen containing compounds. There is nothing really special about organics. You seem to imply that they are always associated with life.

What is an example of the "carbon and hydrogen containing compounds"? How were these compounds made then? Are they simply "organic molecules"

Organic material --> protein --> cells. Is this what you believe? Why do you question it?

 

[Chalnoth]

What is an example of the "carbon and hydrogen containing compounds"? How were these compounds made then? Are they simply "organic molecules"

Organic material --> protein --> cells. Is this what you believe? Why do you question it?

Technically speaking, organic molecules are nothing more and nothing less than molecules that contain carbon. They are often associated with life here on Earth, but are produced by a wide variety of natural processes. Carbon is so strongly associated with life because its molecules are so complex and so abundant.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How the hell could any biological material get to comets/asteroids?

By evolving there? Comets have a range of inherent organic compounds.

 

[Chalnoth]

By evolving there? Comets have a range of inherent organic compounds.

Er, I think evolving is a bad word to use here. There is no life on comets. There is no biological evolution on them, either. I think a better, more accurate word might be "forming", as it doesn't have the biological implications of the word evolve.

 

[juvenissun]

Technically speaking, organic molecules are nothing more and nothing less than molecules that contain carbon. They are often associated with life here on Earth, but are produced by a wide variety of natural processes. Carbon is so strongly associated with life because its molecules are so complex and so abundant.

No. Carbon only is not enough. CO2 is not organic.
It has to have C-H, if not C-H-N-O. Then the problem begins when these molecules become large in this "harsh" universe.

 

[juvenissun]

How the hell could any biological material get to comets/asteroids?

Good question. But that seems to be a fact and demands an answer.

How about it came from fragmented planets where tree/grass/flower were thriving.

 

[MasterWaldo]

The Big Bang Theory:
God said it and 'Bang' it happened.

 

[juvenissun]

Er, I think evolving is a bad word to use here. There is no life on comets. There is no biological evolution on them, either. I think a better, more accurate word might be "forming", as it doesn't have the biological implications of the word evolve.

People always think the organic material in space is getting more complicated through "evolving" or "forming". But what is wrong if they are there now because of deterioration/decomposition? How can we tell one way or the other? It seems the latter option is more plausible due to the harsh space environment.

Remember that we are talking about plants, not animals. That is the difference between the Creation Day 3 and Day 5.

 

[Chalnoth]

Good question. But that seems to be a fact and demands an answer.

How about it came from fragmented planets where tree/grass/flower were thriving.

Impossible. Comets come from the outer reaches of our solar system, a region where the temperature has never been high enough to support any kind of plant life.